With the blessings of a judge or not, a woman still has a right to leave a man she doesn't want to be with.
And your argument falls apart right there with that blatant untruth.
Not untrue at all. Even BroJoeK admits that 50% of all trade with Europe was the consequence of Southern production. Without export products, you can't have much in the way of an import tariff, because you won't be able to buy much unless you are willing to give up your gold and silver, and people are loath to do that.
1/4th of the population created at least 50% of all Federal income.
But say for the sake of argument it was true, the wife still helped run up the credit cards and then left the debt to the husband to pay alone.
What debt? And who ran it up? Are you saying the government spent huge amounts of money for the benefit of the South? What exactly was it that the government did in the way of spending on behalf of the South?
I know about subsidies for railroads and canals and harbors and fishing fleets and mail carriers in the North, but it is my understanding most Southern railroads were privately financed affairs, and since Northern ships carried the mails, they didn't get any of that, and the same is true of fishing fleets and so forth.
The Husband ran up the debt on things the Husband wanted and the wife didn't care about, and then acted like she should feel an obligation to pay for his "mercantilism."
Perhaps. But that would be for a third party to decide or for the two parties to agree on through negotiations.
Husband wasn't interested in negotiations. His position was that all of it belonged to him.
Instead the wife left with everything not nailed down.
Stuff in her side of the House, and stuff she had more paid for than the Husband.
And blasting away at her husband on her way out the door will not end the institution of marriage.
We have once again missed connecting on meaning here. "Blasting away at her husband" constitutes a dire and lethal threat to his life. Fort Sumter is not analogous to a dire and lethal threat to the existence of the Union. Your analogy of "blasting away at her husband" is completely incorrect.
Fort Sumter would constitute at most a "slap." It would not be equivalent to firing bullets at the husband. It does not even remotely approach firing bullets at the husband.
Nobody is saying the wife can't leave to any reason or no reason at all. But you were the one who wanted to compare this to a divorce. You're describing abandonment and possibly theft.
Not untrue at all.
OK then how about a gross exaggeration.
What debt? And who ran it up? Are you saying the government spent huge amounts of money for the benefit of the South? What exactly was it that the government did in the way of spending on behalf of the South?
We're talking about the federal debt, run up by the federal government when Presidents, Representatives, and Senators from both North and South were in Congress. When the South walked out they walked away from their responsibility for debts they had helped run up.
Husband wasn't interested in negotiations. His position was that all of it belonged to him.
Husband wasn't given a chance. Wife walked out and took everything she could get her mitts on without any negotiations at all.
Stuff in her side of the House, and stuff she had more paid for than the Husband.
Still joint property, even if your crazy claim that she had paid for most of it were true.
Fort Sumter would constitute at most a "slap." It would not be equivalent to firing bullets at the husband. It does not even remotely approach firing bullets at the husband.
It certainly does.